Transcript Ethical Relativism:

Ethical Relativism:
Who’s To Judge What’s Right
And Wrong?
Introduction
• In the 19th century, Christian missionaries
sometimes used coercion to change the
customs of pagan tribal people in parts of
Africa and the Pacific Islands.
• This is a cause of ethnocentrism.
• Ex. Eskimos, Spartans, A tribe in East
Africa.
– There are also societies that make it a duty
for children to kill their aging parents
(sometimes by strangling)
• Today, we condemn ethnocentrism as a variety
of prejudice tantamount to racism and sexism.
The rejection of ethnocentrism in the West has
contributed to a general shift in public opinion
about morality, so that for a growing number of
Westerners, consciousness-raising about the
validity of other ways has led to a gradual
erosion of belief in MORAL OBJECTIVISM, the
view that there are universal moral principles,
valid for all people and cultures.
An Analysis of Relativism
• Ethical Relativism vs. Moral Skepticism vs.
Moral Objectivism or Absolutism
• Ethical Relativism: there are no universally valid
moral principals, but rather all moral principals
are valid relative to culture or individual choice.
• Moral Skepticism: the view that there are no
valid moral principles at all.
• Moral Objectivism or Absolutism: there are
universally valid moral principles that apply to all
A statement from John Ladd..
“Ethical relativism is the doctrine that the
moral rightness and wrongness of actions
varies from society to society and that
there are no absolute universal moral
standards binding on all men at all times.
Accordingly, it holds that whether or not it
is right for an individual to act in a certain
way depends on or is relative to the
society to which he belongs.”
If we analyze this passage, we derive the following
argument:
1) What is considered morally right and wrang
varies from society to society, so that there are
no universal moral standards held by all
societies.
2) Whether or not it is right for an individual to act
a certain way depends on or is relative to the
society in which he belongs.
3) Therefore, there are no absolute moral
standards that apply to everyone.
The Diversity Thesis
• The first thesis, which Identifies with
cultural relativism, is simply an
anthropological thesis that acknowledges
the fact that moral rules differ from society
to society.
The Dependency Thesis
• Asserts that individual acts are right and
wrong depending on the nature of the
society in which they occur. Morality does
not exist in a vacuum; rather, what is
considered morally right or wrong must be
seen in context, depending on the goals,
wants, beliefs, history, and environment of
the society in question.
The Dependency Thesis
• Morality is just the set of common rules,
habits, and customs that have won social
approval over time, so that they seem part
of nature of things, like facts. They are the
outcomes of our social history.
• The conclusion: That there are no
absolute or objective moral standards
binding on all people.
Subjectivism
• Some think that the conclusion before is
still too tame. Subjectivists maintain that
morality is not dependent on the society
but on the individual himself or herself.
• On the basis of subjectivism, Adolf Hitler
was as moral as Gandhi, as long as each
believed he was living by his chosen
principles.
Subjectivism
• If it is correct, then morality reduces to
aesthetic tastes, over which there can be
neither argument, nor interpersonal
judgment.
Conflict: Subjectivism vs. Morality
• Morality has to do with proper resolution
of interpersonal conflict. Whatever else
morality does, morality has the minimal
aim of preventing a state of chaos in which
life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
short”.
Analogy
• Subjectivism treats individuals like billiard
balls on a societal pool table where they
meet only in radical collisions, each aimed
at his or her own goal and strive to do in
the others before they themselves are
done in.
Conventionalism
Def: the view that there are no objective
moral principles but rather that all valid
moral principles are justified by virtue of
their cultural acceptance.
The most famous person to hold this
position is Herskovits, who argues that
ethical relativism entails intercultural
tolerance.
3 points:
1) Morality is relative to its culture
2) There is no independent bass for
criticizing the morality of another culture
3) Therefore we ought to be tolerant of the
moralities of other cultures
Question
• Tolerance is certainly a virtue, but is this a
good argument for it? NO
If morality is simply relative to each culture,
then if the culture does not have a
principle of tolerance, its members have
no obligation to be tolerant.
Example
Hitler’s genocidal actions, as long as they
were culturally accepted, were as
legitimate as Mother Teresa’s works of
mercy.
If conventionalism is accepted, then racism,
genocide, and slavery are equally moral
for its opposites.
Ibsen’s Enemy of the People
• “The most dangerous enemy of the truth
and freedom among us – is the compact
majority. The majority has might –
unfortunately – but right it is not. Right –
are I and a few others.”
• If relativism is correct, the opposite is
necessarily the case. Truth is with the
crowd and error with the individual.
A bigger problem
• The problem is that the concepts of
culture and society are notoriously
difficult to define, especially in a pluralistic
society such as America, in which the
concept seems rather vague.
Lets review
• The three thesis:
– The Diversity Thesis (cultural relativism)
– The Dependency Thesis
– Ethical Relativism
The Diversity Thesis
Although cultural relativism may seem to be
fact, it does not by itself establish the truth
of ethical relativism.
Deep inside any society, there are always
certain things that are considered norms,
even if you can’t see them at first.
The Dependency Thesis
• We can only accept one thing. The way the
morals are APPLIED in our culture.
• “Who’s to say which culture is right and which is
wrong”?
We may not be able to know with certainty who’s
views of morality is right . Although we can be
justified in believing they are right. In taking
such a stand, we are seeking to derive principles
through critical reason, not simply accepting
everyone else’s morals.